Illegalist Anarchism

who?

…I mean, it's probably no coincidence that one of the founders went full neo-nazi. Not the worst idea in theory, though - probably needs to be something to deal with "inadequate wealth = i don't need a warrant" cops.

Well Mahler did get kicked out of the RAF when he was in prison so it's not like Volkist ideas were an inherent part of the group.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction#List_of_assaults_attributed_to_the_RAF

Not as good, simply because having ties to a party or other official organization brings the potential of a lot more lawsuits and legal issues.

Red Army Faction. Use a search engine.

The only one that makes sense, but still irrelevant - because Anarchism. Without organized mass movement Capitalism cannot be overthrown. Without DotP - any gains are ephemeral. And without Central Planning restoration of Capitalism is inevitable.

You need Vanguard doing Vanguard things.

Same as above. In fact, I would go as far as to say that RAF wasn't truly Marxist.

Illegalism itself as a philosophy is entirely insufficient as a revolutionary strategy. It's fundamentally individualist. As a a component of a larger revolutionary strategy, like with Spanish anarchist groups like Los Solidarios or Nostros, it can have uses.

Our disgusting culture breeds pure anarchism

Basically these two. If you're an illegalist doing some illegal shit just to do it then sure whatever, but you would be helping yourself (and I would be more inclined to help you) a lot more if you incorporated that into revolutionary activity.

Sounds like legalist statism tbh.

Make a coherent point please.
Kthnx

Bait.

I agree, but this is some underwhelming quints.

Attached: gf.jpg (805x541, 52.83K)

Cucked

That depends, is cuckoldry illegal in your jurisdiction?

egoist in the sheets, illegalist in the streets

Attached: 1471817908571.jpg (500x464, 41.92K)

I don't care about politics I just want to rob shit and mug porkies. Why they have to ruin everything? Nobody cares about your vegetableism.

Adultery is

Not if both parties fuck around. Today you learned: relationship anarchy
I bet you've never cucked, let alone fucked anyone so what's it to you, memester? LMAO

Any constituting power is illegal from the standpoint of the constituted order. In other words, every constitution has its origin in an illegal revolt against the previous legal order.
But what is specific to a good anarchism (as opposed to liberal and lifestylist variations typical of America and now Europe as well) is the refusal to produce a new establishment.

It is Marxism with a force of conviction, "propaganda of the deed" and all that.
Although in those short militant decades (the 60s and 70s) everyone on the left had that force of conviction, anything from RAF to Revolutionäre Zellen, from French Maoists to Situationist International, from Brigatte Rose to Autonomia.

Then you probably don't get to watch. :(

Rechtstaat (so-called "rule of law") is from its very origins tied to neoliberalism. The original neoliberals (the German "ordoliberals") see the society as a sports competition or match where the law intervenes when conflicts arise (like the referee in a sports match). Whereas a revolutionary sees the society not as competition but as a war, e.g. "class war".
What distinguishes competition from war is that in competition every competitor aims to accomplish the same goal (e.g. accumulation of capital) whereas in war your goal is to create a world that is in radical conflict with your opponent's desired world.
And ultimately competition itself is a propaganda against any sort of belief in a radically alternative world.
Basically, the idea of law itself is the enemy of any true revolutionary. And of course a revolutionary can transform themselves into a legalist after their "win" (itself a competitionist concept) - instead of practicing permanent revolution and permanent class war.

So you would say it's a good praxis or not?

Their praxis was a result of correct assessment of the situation: the rise of consumer society (or the "affluent society" before austerity arrived) meant that workers were starting to be integrated rather than merely dominated and exploited - which meant no revolutionary potential anymore. And the desperate strategy of the left terrorism was to show that behind the consumer society were still the same mechanisms of capitalist domination over life - the terrorist strategy was to seduce the state into showing its true colors.
But the tragic irony of leftist terrorism is that it only motivated the German state to make its prevention of resistance more efficient. For example the state introduced the requirement of ID cards in almost every transaction so that the terrorist suspects would be easily identified and located - or isolated to the point of impotence. So in the end terrorism only served to make the state more efficient in preventing resistance.
Which is why Žižek is sadly right when he says that today a modest left-centrist demand can be a far more radical damage to the system that the spectacle of anarchists brawling with police in the streets. I see this in my own country where merely a *proposed* small quantitative change in tax policy towards the rich make the whole country scream of a "second Venezuela", while any protest only produces more consent to new police state measures. My worry is that this "modest demands" cannot be the seeds of a revolution but are instead helping capitalism to acquire a human face - while any radical change is impossible at purely physical level because of the state's increasing power.
And by the way, unlike what Amerian "libertarians" want you to believe, the state is crucial for maintaining the free market. It is from this realization that *neo*liberalism was born - against the old classical liberal economy of the 19th century which produced the 1930's Great Depression. It is not incidental that first neoliberal ideas originate in that same decade (see Walter Lippmann colloquium: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloque_Walter_Lippmann). It is also from this realization that anarchism is not to be dismissed entirely, although its liberal variations should absolutely be ridiculed.

So what would be the right praxis now?

sad

Safety is bourgeois. And I say that without any sense of irony, perfectly autistically.

Breathing is bourgeois. Only true revolutionaries survive via passive-draft gills.

But what if you don't want that and only want one person?

Sounds like a healthy environment to raise a child in and around.

youtube.com/watch?v=Bw6msZpnblI